Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Soap Operas/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
Remaining infobox changes
Hi - I've listed the second half of proposed changes, I believe they have all reached consensus but please weigh in if you think they haven't - here is the link to the template discussion. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Infobox for couples
I'm not sure if this is at all possible, but...There are almost 40 articles are soap opera super-couples, but none have an info box for the couple. Almost every other soap-related article has some form of info box template, except for the couple pages. Would it be at all possible to create a new inforbox template for couples? It would of course be similar to the template for characters, but with some changes, including the removal of parameters that obviously don't apply to two people. Thoughts?Caringtype1 (talk) 00:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think this would be a good idea. Bruno and Luisa di Marco is a good example - it currently uses the second general character template. I don't know of other types of infobox we already have other than the general character ones and the soap opera one, but I'd also like to see one for storylines (I've seen several storyline articles that have no infobox, e.g Who Killed Archie?) and I also did a family one for EastEnders, Template:Infobox EastEnders family, which I've just made some changes to so it could be used for other soaps. I think it's better than Template:Infobox television family. I can move it so it's called Template:Infobox soap opera family. It uses a sub-template Template:Infobox EastEnders family/member so that family members can have entries. I created it for one article, Ferreira family, where the family members don't have separate pages or individual sections in the article (one reason I did it for EastEnders only - the other being that at the time, we had loads of character templates for individual soaps, so I copied those!). So thoughts on that and a storyline inbobox would also be appreciated, as well as one for soap couples. –anemoneprojectors– 12:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
- A storyline infobox is something that I'd like to see too. - JuneGloom Talk 17:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. Your input in the above linked discussion would be appreciated by me. Over the years, this article (yes, it is about a soap opera character; it's about a nighttime soap opera character) has been moved from its common name, and I'm certain that the latest move still violates the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Duration formatting in infobox
Hello - I've noticed some back and forth with formatting of duration and am not sure myself how we like to do this... When characters appear briefly in a year (i.e. someone had individual guest stints in 2001, 2002, and 2003 but was not on continuously during that time) are they listed separately, or together (2001–03)? A few examples:
- Carly Corinthos - there was a brief period (a month or maybe a few? can't remember) in between actress changes in 2005 where the character was offscreen.
- Kristina Davis - child actress last appeared August 2008 and SORAS'd actress first appeared in May 2009, left in Nov. 2011 and replacement started in May 2012.
- Robin Scorpio - on contract 85-96, individual guest appearances in 97, 98, 99, 2000, 2001 (on a different series), 2004, and then back on contract 2005-12, left and came back on a recurring status later this year.
Thoughts? Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm glad you brought this up, it definitely needs to be discussed. I think very individual appearance should be listed separately. If the character made separate guest stints in 2001, 2002, 2003, it should be listed as such. For the Carly Corinthos article, I don't think the in-between actor period is a notable enough time period to be listed separately(another example would be Maxie Jones). For Kristina Davis and Robin Scorpio, the separations are very necessary to describe the period that the character appeared.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- You have brought up the most controversial subject ever agreed upon. This has already been discussed and solved. Basically if the character appears every year then you list it as such. Not 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003... but 2000-03. This happens to be one of the things I have resisted doing, but in reality it makes sense. But if a character is not present for more than a calender month, then you can split. Sometimes it just feels wrong though. Look at Amira Masood for an example. She was off-screen for longer than 12 months, but because it was not a calender year it would have made it seem like she appeared continously. An exception was made for her though. There are so many reasons for and against ... this could go on for weeks. I still do not know what is for the best.Rain the 1 02:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, I should have taken a look through the archives first. I agree with both of you. I think we can make general statements but in some cases it just depends. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- One more thing about this I forgot to ask - what about separating durations for appearances on different series? I've seen some back and forth on that lately too. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have been wondering that too, and I really think duration should be listed separately for each series. It just makes it so much easier for the reader to understand.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not if they are sister soaps and they appeared on both shows as the same character in the same time period. Jester66 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, for example the ABC cross-overs a while back. But for characters that did extensive stints I think it's a little confusing. Specifically the edit warring with the OLTL characters that went to GH, we should make a decision on that. If anything, if an editor is removing durations they should move the information to the casting section so it is not lost. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not if they are sister soaps and they appeared on both shows as the same character in the same time period. Jester66 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have been wondering that too, and I really think duration should be listed separately for each series. It just makes it so much easier for the reader to understand.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- My take on this, is that if the appearances occurred consecutively, like a few guest appearances each year, the duration should be continuous. For example, with Cord Roberts of One Life to Live, this is what the series's cast list has for his duration; "1986–1992, 1993–1997, 2004, 2007, 2008, 2011." Instead, I would rewrite the duration this way, "1986–97, 2004, 2007–08, 2011."--Nk3play2 my buzz 04:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- But that is misleading to the reader. We are saying that the appeared straight through from one year to another (example:2001-03, instead of 2001, 2002, 2003), which is completely false.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree.. Jester66 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Nk3play2. We wouldn't be saying that a character appeared continuously from 2001 to 2003, but by stating 2001-03, we are saying they appeared in every year from 2001 and 2003. –anemoneprojectors– 22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- This seems to make sense, as long as it's described appropriately in the casting section. I also liked Rain's explanation of exceptions when they are off screen for more than twelve months, i.e. if they appeared in January 2001 and not again until December 2002 you wouldn't put 2001-02. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is something editors of EastEnders articles discussed a while back, and we came to the conclusion that if the break was for less than one calendar year (rather than 365 days), we'd combine them, so even if it was a break from January 2001 to December 2002, we'd still combine them. But lots of people didn't like that, especially when it was one-off guest returns such as Sonia Fowler. But personally I still think they should be combined! –anemoneprojectors– 22:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- To me, combining them makes absolutely no sense. It is just confusing and misleading. I don't see the problem with listing them separately. Caringtype1 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do not find that aspect confusing. All it means is that they made an appearance in each of the years specified. But some people think it means they appeared non-stop. But listing 2001, 2002, 2003 could suggest they appeared throughout each of those years - when infact they may have only appeared in one episode each year. Either way this still has the same effect - only one is more concise. So I think shortening the duration is correct.Rain the 1 00:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is something editors of EastEnders articles discussed a while back, and we came to the conclusion that if the break was for less than one calendar year (rather than 365 days), we'd combine them, so even if it was a break from January 2001 to December 2002, we'd still combine them. But lots of people didn't like that, especially when it was one-off guest returns such as Sonia Fowler. But personally I still think they should be combined! –anemoneprojectors– 22:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- This seems to make sense, as long as it's described appropriately in the casting section. I also liked Rain's explanation of exceptions when they are off screen for more than twelve months, i.e. if they appeared in January 2001 and not again until December 2002 you wouldn't put 2001-02. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with Nk3play2. We wouldn't be saying that a character appeared continuously from 2001 to 2003, but by stating 2001-03, we are saying they appeared in every year from 2001 and 2003. –anemoneprojectors– 22:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree.. Jester66 (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- But that is misleading to the reader. We are saying that the appeared straight through from one year to another (example:2001-03, instead of 2001, 2002, 2003), which is completely false.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- One more thing about this I forgot to ask - what about separating durations for appearances on different series? I've seen some back and forth on that lately too. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, I should have taken a look through the archives first. I agree with both of you. I think we can make general statements but in some cases it just depends. Thanks! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Now, if that was the consensus, it is being used inconsistently. I thought the result of the previous discussion was that if a character appeared in consecutive years, they would be listed as such(ex. 2001-03), but that is not how it is used on pages such as Kristina Davis, Robin Scorpio, Maxie Jones, among others. Why are these pages exceptions, but others are not?Caringtype1 (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Did we decide on calendar year versus 365 days? I think calendar year? If so then yes we should change those in my opinion. A related question - what about duplicating the durations for the actor? Easiest way to explain is an example this revert at Anna Devane. Do the durations need to be listed after Finola assumed the role again in 2001? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- For actors, I would suggest using a "first and last" format (as seen in Sam Mitchell (EastEnders) - her duration is 1990–93, 1995–96, 1999–2000 2002–05, 2009–10, but her actor durations are 1990–2000 (first actor), 2002–05 (second actor) and 2009–10 (first actor again)), since there's no need to duplicate the entire duration. –anemoneprojectors– 09:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I've created an RFC about creating two season pages of two-season television series. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Recreation of Joey Rainbow
I've spoken to Cirt, the deleter of said article three years earlier and I have been working on it in my userspace for a while and feel it is ready to go as I now have several sources with a large development section and he has no objection but did advise me to consult a few wikiprojects before proceeding. Is anyone opposed to this? Conquistador2k6Talk to me, Dammit!
The article Maggie Barnes (Dallas) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- WP:N - no mention of notability; nonnotable secondary TV soap opera character
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 76.65.128.43 (talk)
Pamela Barnes
Pamela Barnes has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Pamela Barnes -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Jamie Ewing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- WP:N - no mention of notability, nonnotable secondary TV soap opera character
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Rebecca Barnes Wentworth (Dallas) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- WP:N - no mention of notability -- nonnotable secondary TV soap opera character
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Katherine Wentworth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- WP:N nonnotable secondary TV soap opera character
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 76.65.128.43 (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Michelle Stevens has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- WP:N - no mention of notability, completely in-universe; secondary character on a soap opera
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 76.65.128.43 (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Cally Harper Ewing has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- WP:N - no mention of notability; secondary character of a soap opera
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 76.65.128.43 (talk) 12:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
The article Mark Graison has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- WP:N -- nonnotable secondary soap opera character
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 76.65.128.43 (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Pregnancies/children
I think it's clutter to add "currently expecting" children to infoboxes, and inviting edit warring with all the different plot turns pregnancies take in soap operas. I think children should be added when actually born and named. Thoughts? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Dallas and user:Peteerh
Peteerh (talk · contribs) is converting redirects to the List of Dallas characters into articles without mention of notability, in a in-universe manner, and without much in the way of references. You may wish to examine these articles to see if they should be restored to being redirects, or can be fixed to show notability; and add real-world relevance/information. He's also adding miscarriages to the character infoboxes of existing articles. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Women's History Month is in March
Hi everyone at WikiProject Soap Operas!
Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.
This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Some ideas include:
- Soap operas written, directed or produced by women
- Women who have played characters on soap operas
- The importance of soap opera culture in women's lives
We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
At AFD it was decided to merge these two articles together. According to the fictional history of the show, "Rebecca Barnes Wentworth" is the grandmother of "Rebecca Barnes", so how do we handle the merger? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've spoken with the closing admin and he has agreed that Rebecca Barnes Wentworth (Dallas) can be merged with List of Dallas characters, or simply redirected. –anemoneprojectors– 13:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- The creator of the page, Peteerh (talk · contribs), has blanked the page. I assume this could be handled through {{db-author}} ? I'll add a tag. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- The speedy delete was declined, so the merge or redirect is still to be done. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, speedy would only apply if they were the only person to have contributed significantly to the article. As it's all in-universe (storyline) information, I don't think it's worth merging much, so could just be redirected. –anemoneprojectors– 11:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Mind performing the honors? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 10:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, speedy would only apply if they were the only person to have contributed significantly to the article. As it's all in-universe (storyline) information, I don't think it's worth merging much, so could just be redirected. –anemoneprojectors– 11:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- The speedy delete was declined, so the merge or redirect is still to be done. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- The creator of the page, Peteerh (talk · contribs), has blanked the page. I assume this could be handled through {{db-author}} ? I'll add a tag. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Peteerh
Peteerh (talk · contribs) is making hundreds of nuisance edits to Dallas characters, adding and then immediately removing the changes, moving parameters in the infobox up or down a few lines, and then doing it again a few hours later. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- A new user has appeared with a similar user name and the same usage pattern (same kinds of nuisance edits) Peter9709 (talk · contribs) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Middle Names & Strings of Other Names
Hello everyone. I would like to discuss something that can be problematic at times. When writing a lede section to an article there seems to be a standard to state a character name. Yes, in every article you obviously state the subject name. But in WP:SOAP articles we tend to go OTT? I think previous surnames that the character has been constantly known by - are okay. But what about names they have never been known as? What about a marriage 20 years in the past before the character was created? But most of all, what about middle names?
Sometimes a middle name is never used. It could be used for a wedding or an arrest. Not every character has a wedding or gets arrested. But what happens when they do and their middle name is revealed. Sometimes middle names are extremely long. You know the scene, vicar reads out the middle names you did not want your wedding party to hear, and they all laugh. Usually a old relatives name or a chain of names. Take these examples below:
- Vanessa Villante "Vanessa Francesca Antonella Villante is a fictional character"
- Mercedes McQueen "Mercedes Maria Theresa Immaculata Fisher (née McQueen; previously Owen) is a fictional character"
Vanessa has been called that once. Mercedes has been called it at least twice when she married. But by the time the general reader has got to "character in the British soap opera" part - they have already read out this massive sentence about the character’s name. Is it clutter? It is not even what the character is known by for the most part, right? Yet - this information is never mentioned in the article itself. But the actual definition of a lead section is meant to be a introduction to the article, reflecting information actually in the article. So should it even be there? But I suppose it is quite nice to know these things. So is there not a different home for it? Or maybe a field in the information box could work? What about a line a characterisation section? Perhaps a hidden note? What does everyone think?Rain the 1 17:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I must admit that middle names are something that has started to get to me recently. Vanessa's looks ridiculous to me, especially in the lead of the article. Middle names are tricky to source too. Usually they are added without a source, so I tend to add a hidden note that mentions the date and episode it was mentioned in. I agree with what Rain said in his final paragraph. If the name isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article, why should it be mentioned so early on in the lead? I've also considered moving middle names to the storylines or characterisation section. Maybe a "full name" field could be added to the ibox to help the issue? Or maybe middle names should be removed all together, how important are they to the overall article? - JuneGloom Talk 18:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Dropping by to alert you all to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The Project is Wrongly Named
Telenovelas are not soap operas, different genre. Telenovelas last typically 6-12 months, have conflict, resolution, and an ending. They are not unending Searches for Tomorrow. It you must put them in the same bag with soap operas, the bag should be called WikiProject Long TV Dramas. Perhaps a serious presentation is needed of how soap operas and telenovelas are alike & different. Is there really any other likeness, except that both typically are Mon-Friday series drama that last longer than 6 months?(EnochBethany (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC))
Listing of former married names for female characters
Hello everyone. Should we really be listing the former married names of female characters? For example, Nikki Newman (nee Reed; formerly Foster, Abbott, Landers, etc). I see it as cluttering and unneeded. I think we should just list the character's maiden name in brackets, if applicable. For example, Victoria Nicole Abbott (nee Newman). Please feel free to contribute your opinions! Thanks! Creativity97 01:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've never liked it when editors do that in the leads, especially because some female characters have been married several or numerous times (such as Nikki Newman and Erica Kane); that information is already found in the infobox, and should stay regulated there unless discussed in the lower body of the article. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I think they should stay. They were once the character's name, so they're notable enough for inclusion. Other than that, it has always been one of the things I like best about soap articles.Caringtype1 (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am undecided and I have thought about this one many times. There are pros and cons. It is bad to have a long trail of clutter before you can complete the first, opening line. But it could be really relevant. I did once think that important names as a whole. "Also known as" or "commonly refered to as". I dunno. Pat Butcher has a good example, like she was commonly known as "Fat Pat" in the media. But then 9 times out of ten your soap character has not got that many previous names. I dunno. I really cannot think for the best.Rain the 1 02:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think it is needed. For example, Sharon Newman had the married name "Newman" for over a decade and then became an Abbott. Although this isn't the current case, while she had the last name Abbott, she went by Newman for a long time which is why it was importantly present. This is just one example. Although, the clutter is a problem. Maybe if the marriage was invalid, or only lasted a few days/weeks, the former married should not be present. Arre 02:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Raintheone, "Fat Pat" doesn't relate to any married name she had, though, right? Per Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names, there isn't a problem listing in the lead alternative names that the character is commonly known by. But like it also states: "If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended."
- I think it is needed. For example, Sharon Newman had the married name "Newman" for over a decade and then became an Abbott. Although this isn't the current case, while she had the last name Abbott, she went by Newman for a long time which is why it was importantly present. This is just one example. Although, the clutter is a problem. Maybe if the marriage was invalid, or only lasted a few days/weeks, the former married should not be present. Arre 02:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Arre 9, per above, noting Sharon's name as "Newman" in the lead was perfectly fine because that's her WP:COMMONNAME. But during that time, I would have added "commonly known as Sharon Newman" instead to drive home the point; this would help readers and editors (especially those who kept changing the article's title to Sharon Abbot) understand that that's why the article goes by her previous married name. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, I either did not know or I'd forgotten that Sharon Case didn't originate the role of Sharon Collins. Considering how familiar I am with the character, except for some of her storylines in the last two or three years, it goes to show how thoroughly associated Case has become with the role. Flyer22 (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- Arre 9, per above, noting Sharon's name as "Newman" in the lead was perfectly fine because that's her WP:COMMONNAME. But during that time, I would have added "commonly known as Sharon Newman" instead to drive home the point; this would help readers and editors (especially those who kept changing the article's title to Sharon Abbot) understand that that's why the article goes by her previous married name. Flyer22 (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I also feel undecided... I definitely see the point about clutter but I think sometimes it's notable and sometimes for long standing characters there could be more than one previous name they are known well by, that wouldn't be encompassed by a singular commonname. Does WP:TENSE apply? i.e. if the character lives in a perpetual present tense, it would make sense to list all names. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that WP:TENSE applies, but that is a different way of looking at it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
- I guess a character's former married names should be listed if the union is/was highly notable, but for long standing characters who have been married many times over the years, listing all of her former married names is very cluttering. Does anyone have any suggestions for a happy medium? Creativity97 21:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the above linked matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I have tweaked the information that IP 199.17.222.10. added about this to the Roger Howarth, Michael Easton and Kristen Alderson articles; I mostly tweaked the information because, as the source shows, these reported/speculated changes (that these actors will no longer portray their One Life to Live characters, and why that is) have not yet been confirmed by the companies that own the television programs. I'm alerting this project to this because help may be needed in dealing with more such additions from this IP or other IPs/registered editors. And also because if these reported/speculated changes do happen, help may be needed to keep the Todd Manning and Starr Manning articles in shape. The John McBain (One Life to Live) article is not much work in that regard, as it is currently mostly made up of plot. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Deletion discussion that any of you may be interested in weighing in on. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Kate Howard article -- name issue
There is a name issue going on with this article, as seen with the following diff-links: [1][2][3][4][5]. But back and forth or not, per WP:COMMONNAME, this article should stay at the Kate Howard title until the alternate name is as much as or more so the common name for this character as Kate is, if that ever happens. So more eyes on this matter are likely needed and would be appreciated by me, especially since I barely watch General Hospital, the show this character is from. Flyer22 (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Titles for supercouple articles
Hello everyone. Recently, some soap opera supercouple pages have been moved from, for example, "Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins" to Nick and Sharon, or "J.T. Hellstrom and Colleen Carlton" to J.T. and Colleen, as that is what they are primarily known by. However, someone has brought it to my attention that we are writing an encyclopedia for all readers, not just soap fans, so some formality is needed and that includes last names. Please note that the article Luke and Laura is the only exception, as they are highly notable and do not require last names. Please contribute your opinions here as to what we should be titling supercouple articles. Creativity97 21:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the articles should include the full names. We cannot just go by what they are called by fans of that couple. Again, Luke and Laura, is the exception, many people know what you mean when you say "Luke and Laura". But for other couples, this is not so, I'd have no idea what the article Nick and Sharon is about, without having read it. I don't know who Nick and Sharon are, but putting their last names at least narrows it down.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- My thoughts on the matter can be found here at Talk:Luke and Laura (though, with regard to the TomKat example, the TomKat article currently no longer exists) and here at Talk:Nick and Sharon. I prefer the full titles, even in the case of Luke and Laura; they won't always be as well known as they are now. But, for now, I do see Luke and Laura as the exception. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the WP:COMMONNAME should be used in each case. Someone unfamiliar with "Nick and Sharon" is probably just as unfamiliar with "Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins", and reading through the common name section, there are various articles that are titled the common name instead of the more encyclopedic name. I also think it gets tricky when there are characters involved that have been on for many years and their individual common names have changed, such as Sharon Newman, or Laura Spencer and the original title "Luke Spencer and Laura Webber." But if an individual couple was more commonly referred to by their full names, then in that article I think the full names should be used. You could use something like Google Trends to help decide. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Google Trends is a very good example, Kelly. From what I read on that link, more people know them by "Nick and Sharon" over "Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins", but someone who is unfamiliar with them will be just as unfamiliar with either title. I'm really undecided. Luke and Laura should definitely remain under that title as they are extremely notable; I'm sure someone whose never watched General Hospital in their life have heard of Luke and Laura because 30 million Americans watched their onscreen wedding in 1981, and they continue to be reported by mainstream media. And yes, there are umpteen articles titled by their common name over the encyclopedic name. And just to clarify, titling articles with just first names wouldn't be going by their fan names. If we were to do that, Nick and Sharon would be titled "Shick", Luke and Laura "L&L", etc. For now, I'm casting my opinion as going by their common name, which would be just first names. Not everything can go by an encyclopedic name. Also, per WP:UCN, article titles are to go by the most common name as reported in reliable sources. So, in other words, if Nick and Sharon are referred to by that name in most reliable sources, than that is what the article title should be. Creativity97 00:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the WP:COMMONNAME should be used in each case. Someone unfamiliar with "Nick and Sharon" is probably just as unfamiliar with "Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins", and reading through the common name section, there are various articles that are titled the common name instead of the more encyclopedic name. I also think it gets tricky when there are characters involved that have been on for many years and their individual common names have changed, such as Sharon Newman, or Laura Spencer and the original title "Luke Spencer and Laura Webber." But if an individual couple was more commonly referred to by their full names, then in that article I think the full names should be used. You could use something like Google Trends to help decide. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- My thoughts on the matter can be found here at Talk:Luke and Laura (though, with regard to the TomKat example, the TomKat article currently no longer exists) and here at Talk:Nick and Sharon. I prefer the full titles, even in the case of Luke and Laura; they won't always be as well known as they are now. But, for now, I do see Luke and Laura as the exception. Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Kelly Marie 0812, like Caringtype1 stated above, "putting their last names at least narrows [down who they are]." I'm not aware of too many instances where a fictional character has had more than one common name; even in the case of Sharon Newman, though she started off with the name Sharon Collins, her common name has been Sharon Newman for more than a decade. And the article could have easily been titled Nicholas and Sharon Newman (that should be made into a redirect, by the way). To me, having a couple article only go by the couple's first names is like having a character article only go by the character's first name. While some soap operas often have characters refer to each other by their first and last names (their full names), such as in the case of Erica Kane, they are usually more commonly referred to by their first name only. And yet we don't have their articles titled by their first names only. Besides a character being better known by their full name (such as in the case of Erica Kane), we don't do that because it's ambiguous as to which character with that name we are talking about and is often a disambiguation page instead. That stated, an article titled after a couple is significantly less ambiguous. There usually is not going to be two fictional couples, especially two popular fictional couples, that have the same name (first or last); that's even further reduced when it's only the soap opera genre to consider. And the lead of the article should list the couple's full name, like the Nick and Sharon article does, and this also shows up in a Google search.
- Creativity97, titling articles with just first names is going by their fan names; it's going by their fan names because it's mostly fans, or viewers who are not fans, who only refer to them by those names, such as Nick and Sharon, not the general public. And elaborating on the fan name aspect further, like I stated in the Luke and Laura discussion I linked to above, these couples are also commonly known by their combined couple names (a portmanteau), and they are known by their combined couple names more so than their uncombined couple names in some cases, and yet we don't have the Nick and Sharon article, for example, titled Shick; the arguments for not doing that are the same for not going by only their first names, except that it's very problematic to go by a portmanteau as the article title since portmanteaus don't identify the couple's names or even if the topic is about a couple. And while article titles on Wikipedia usually go by the most common name reported in reliable sources, there are some instances on Wikipedia where this is advised against; for example, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Naming conventions, the "article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded." That's why heart attack redirects to Myocardial infarction.
- As seen in the aforementioned Luke and Laura discussion, the main reason I didn't want that article to only go by the first names is because I knew that it would lead to editors deciding to have other soap opera couple articles only go by the first names, which is exactly what happened in the case of the Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins article. Having seen editors on crusades to eliminate soap opera articles from Wikipedia, especially soap opera couple articles, I believe that a soap opera couple article only going by the couple's first names adds to these editors' desire to delete such articles because they are likely to view the title as fanboyish/fangirlish and therefore unencyclopedic. But whatever this WikiProject decides to do on the topic of naming couple articles, if anything at all, I won't much protest it.
- That's about all I think of this subject at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I still happen to disagree. In terms of narrowing it down, I think it'd make more sense to title it something like Nick and Sharon (The Young and the Restless) or Nick and Sharon (Supercouple). In terms of the heart attack example, that happens to be a case where the medical term is more commonly used than the layman term in the appropriate reliable sources. WP:COMMONNAME gives examples of the opposite situation, such as caffeine, United Kingdom, etc etc. If a couple is more commonly referred to by their full names, that's what they should go by, if by a phrase of first names, then that. It should be the common name in each particular situation, as shown in reliable sources, as WP:UCN clearly states. I don't see it as being comparable to naming an individual article by a first name only, since it is a phrase of two first names. Also most reliable sources wouldn't refer to an individual character by only the first name, so I don't think there are many characters where that is their common name but the article uses the full name instead. If the couple's article is appropriately sourced with notability shown, it should be in no danger of deletion because of its title. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Kelly Marie 0812. Fan names would be something like "Shick" for Nick and Sharon; using their common names isn't for fans, its so that the article could be easier to locate. Writing Nick and Sharon, their WP:COMMONNAME, is completely fine. Most of the females' maiden names on these articles are widely unknown (Nikki Reed, Sharon Collins, so what's the point of using them?). The media in general don't use surnames. People don't search "Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins", they search "Nick and Sharon". Adding surnames for general readers who aren't fans just complicates it, IMO. So for someone who is unfamiliar with the topic, formality will just make it more difficult and unnecessary. Google is very good indication of this. Arre 01:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with Kelly Marie 0812 and Arre 9. There is an easy way to settle this discussion. Per what WP:UCN clearly states, article titles of any kind are to be titled by their common name as reported in most reliable sources. Like Arre said, most female characters' maiden names have become widely unknown, therefore, if someone is looking for a supercouple article, they will most likely search for "Nick and Sharon", "Luke and Laura", "J.T. and Colleen", "Daniel and Lily", etc. Even in the case of a supercouple article where surnames are commonly known, a redirect page would already be there. If worst comes to worst, then clarifying the title by adding "Nick and Sharon (supercouple)" would be okay. Can we close this discussion now by saying that: Per WP:UCN, a supercouple article is titled by their most common name as reported in reliable sources? Creativity97 15:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. Thanks C97! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Some good points, everyone. However, I do reiterate that, per what I stated above about combined couple names (portmanteaus) often being the WP:COMMONNAME or more so the WP:COMMONNAME, even in the most reliable sources, I don't see this as a case of simply "article titles of any kind are to be titled by their common name as reported in most reliable sources." Following what WP:COMMONNAME states means that we should also realize that it lists exceptions, and that WP:Article titles, which is what WP:COMMONNAME is a part of, lists exceptions to WP:COMMONNAME. For example, one exception that WP:COMMONNAME lists is the following: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." Some of our editors may consider couple titles consisting of only first names to be ambiguous. So, clearly, WP:COMMONNAME does not state "article titles of any kind are to be titled by their common name as reported in most reliable sources." But as for narrowing it down, such as Nick and Sharon to Nick and Sharon (The Young and the Restless), the title should not be disambiguated that way, not unless there is another Nick and Sharon article (a Nick and Sharon from another series or one who are a real-life couple); this is per WP:Disambiguation. But that's why I also stated that "an article titled after a couple is significantly less ambiguous. There usually is not going to be two fictional couples, especially two popular fictional couples, that have the same name (first or last); that's even further reduced when it's only the soap opera genre to consider."
- I agree. Thanks C97! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see a need to go by the shortened, less encyclopedic names in these cases, as though it's difficult for readers to find these articles under the full names, but Arre has made exceptionally good points (points I already considered); it's because of those points that I mind less now if the titles of all the soap opera couple or supercouple articles are shortened to the couples' first names. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- It just has to go with their common name. I do not like using only the character's first names though. It is easier for readers to locate when using surnames.Rain the 1 19:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, someone searching for a character article, wouldn't just search their first name, they'd search the character's full name. Why should these articles be different?Caringtype1 (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- However, per WP:UCN, an article of any kind is to be titled by their most common name as reported in most reliable sources. While I see why some people would prefer the use of surnames, this Wikipedia policy clearly states how to title these articles. "Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins" are commonly known as "Nick and Sharon", same with "Luke and Laura". From what I and others have researched, most supercouples are known by their first names. I think we can close this discussion soon as WP:UCN, a Wikipedia policy, states how to title these articles. Creativity97 21:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Creativity97, I pointed out above that WP:COMMONNAME/WP:UCN does not state that articles must go by the most common name; I also pointed out how this is not a simple case of going by the most common name; it can, for example, be argued that the combined couple names, some of which are also reported in a lot of reliable sources (some as much as or more so than the uncombined couple names), are the most common names for some of these couples. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- However, per WP:UCN, an article of any kind is to be titled by their most common name as reported in most reliable sources. While I see why some people would prefer the use of surnames, this Wikipedia policy clearly states how to title these articles. "Nicholas Newman and Sharon Collins" are commonly known as "Nick and Sharon", same with "Luke and Laura". From what I and others have researched, most supercouples are known by their first names. I think we can close this discussion soon as WP:UCN, a Wikipedia policy, states how to title these articles. Creativity97 21:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, someone searching for a character article, wouldn't just search their first name, they'd search the character's full name. Why should these articles be different?Caringtype1 (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- It just has to go with their common name. I do not like using only the character's first names though. It is easier for readers to locate when using surnames.Rain the 1 19:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see a need to go by the shortened, less encyclopedic names in these cases, as though it's difficult for readers to find these articles under the full names, but Arre has made exceptionally good points (points I already considered); it's because of those points that I mind less now if the titles of all the soap opera couple or supercouple articles are shortened to the couples' first names. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, well, will we be able to reach a consensus here? Because many people have made good arguments that support both just first names and both names. For one thing, Sharon in "Nick and Sharon" has not gone by Collins in over 17 years, same thing in "Victor Newman and Nikki Reed", Nikki has not gone by Reed in almost 30 years. Would articles like this be better off titled something like "Nick and Sharon Newman" and "Victor and Nikki Newman"? Creativity97 00:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just a quick comment; these "super"couples have reached some sort of notability to even warrant articles. And the articles should be (WP:COMMONNAME, again) titled under their common name. This overrides unnecessary formalities. But I do agree that Victor/Nikki should be moved to "Victor and Nikki Newman", as the same with Nick/Sharon. Surnames should be used. Arre 06:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well in that case, should we just agree to combining both names with the common names? So Nick and Sharon would become "Nick and Sharon Newman", Victor and Nikki would become "Victor and Nikki Newman", and then unmarried super couples would go back to both names? But I still think Luke and Laura should remain as is given their notability. Please post comments here on this suggestion to bring this discussion to a consensus. Creativity97 21:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Names in infoboxes
When listing relative names in infoboxes, I believe somewhere it says that WP:COMMONNAMEs should be used... is that the general consensus over current married names? What's really driving me crazy is the constant back and forth on numerous articles that list Carly Jacks vs. Carly Corinthos Jacks (where Carly Corinthos is the common name and Carly Jacks is her currently used name, although divorced). Thoughts? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it does say somewhere that WP:Commonnames should be used. For example, Victoria Abbott is Victoria Newman's married name, but per WP:COMMONNAME, her infobox name should be Victoria Newman. In this case, Carly Corinthos would be listed as her infobox name as that is her common name. I would suggest putting Carly Corinthos and explaining this policy to anyone who changes it to anything else. Creativity97 21:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the fact that she was Corinthos for 7 years and for 6 years now she has been referred to as Mrs Jacks or Ms Jacks should be taken into consideration. They are both common names. So its not exactly "current" for her. Google search suggests that the phrase "Jax" (Jacks) is the most commonly searched term after "Carly" regarding her. So idk. Does anyone know, what she's credited as on the show's credits? I think moving the article should be considered.. Does anyone know for sure that Corinthos is her positive common name at the moment? Arre 06:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think their info box name is supposed to be what they are credited by the series. I believe Carly is credited as Carly Corinthos Jacks. I just remembered this. Creativity97 21:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox_soap_character says to use the commonname, which I kind of agree with for the same reasons we wouldn't change the article name every time the character's credits change. But if we decide otherwise we should update the infobox instructions. ABC's website does credit her as Carly Corinthos Jacks, and there are lots of IP wars between that and Carly Jacks in the text and infoboxes of a handful of articles. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just use the common name then. But in Carly's case, I'd still put Carly Corinthos Jacks, just to settle IP edit wars. Creativity97 02:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- A lot of IP addresses seem to take issue with this one - changing the surname to what the character is called on the given day. I match it to the article title, as that is also (or should be) the common name.Rain the 1 00:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just use the common name then. But in Carly's case, I'd still put Carly Corinthos Jacks, just to settle IP edit wars. Creativity97 02:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox_soap_character says to use the commonname, which I kind of agree with for the same reasons we wouldn't change the article name every time the character's credits change. But if we decide otherwise we should update the infobox instructions. ABC's website does credit her as Carly Corinthos Jacks, and there are lots of IP wars between that and Carly Jacks in the text and infoboxes of a handful of articles. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think their info box name is supposed to be what they are credited by the series. I believe Carly is credited as Carly Corinthos Jacks. I just remembered this. Creativity97 21:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the fact that she was Corinthos for 7 years and for 6 years now she has been referred to as Mrs Jacks or Ms Jacks should be taken into consideration. They are both common names. So its not exactly "current" for her. Google search suggests that the phrase "Jax" (Jacks) is the most commonly searched term after "Carly" regarding her. So idk. Does anyone know, what she's credited as on the show's credits? I think moving the article should be considered.. Does anyone know for sure that Corinthos is her positive common name at the moment? Arre 06:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
GA reassessment
Hello everyone. I have nominated the good article Dimitri Marick for a community reassessment, as its current state does not meet the good article criteria. Anyone who would like to contribute their opinions on this matter can do so at the discussion here. Thanks! Creativity97 22:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- How does its current state not meet the WP:GA criteria? It's mostly the same as it was the day it was elevated to WP:GA status. You made this edit to the article, and a few others, including having added this copyedit tag to it. The article "missing" some information you feel should be in the article does not mean that it does not satisfy the WP:GA status. Considering that the editor who brought this article to WP:GA status, Rocksey, has not been on Wikipedia under her Rocksey account or at all since February 15, 2012, it would be better to send her an email about this WP:GA reassessment instead of just the message you left on her talk page about it. I'll reply with this same comment, and more, in the WP:GA reassessment. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- After a brief but good look at the article, I don't think it needs a reassessment. Maybe just a clean-up would do, which you seem to have already done Creativity. It's a well sourced article. Arre 10:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
FAC comments?
Hi everyone. I was wondering if any of you have the time, could you please comment here? I've nominated an article for FA, and it would be greatly appreciated if anyone could share their opinions, support or objections. The article is a GA and has been thoroughly copy-edited by a member from the Guild of Copy Editors, so I'd be glad if you can take a look. Arre 06:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Soap Character: Sonny Kiriakis
Could someone pleas do significant edit on this character page this is a character on Days of our Lives who is half of the supercouple Will and Sonny with Will Horton. So can someone please make this article good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.182.8 (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note: The above IP is likely the same person (but different IP) who left a message on my talk page, asking that I significantly fix up the article in question. Flyer22 (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The move request is relisted, so you can decide to vote for or against the proposal to change to Sam Morgan. --George Ho (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- I relisted it AGAIN! Even after it was moved back to Sam McCall per the discussion, the user who moved it to Sam Morgan originally moved it back. Please block that user from moving the page again. It's becoming disruptive and vandalism. 71.233.227.127 (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have done my part with regard to the matter again, as seen here and here. I did not check to see who moved the article the previous time, but now I have checked. As mentioned by the IP above, it's same editor who moved it this time. That editor's stubbornness will be his or her downfall with regard to this matter if he or she keeps at this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Peer review comments
Hello everyone. I've created a peer review for the article Cane Ashby at this link, as I would like to eventually nominate this article for FA, but I would like to hear other users' opinions on what areas of the article need to be worked on. Any comments, questions or opinions would be gladly appreciated. Thanks! Regards, Creativity97 21:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Coronationset.jpg
image:Coronationset.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Argentine telenovelas
I have nominated for GA a pair of Argentine telenovelas, You Are the One and Graduados, a pair of months ago. Reviews would be welcomed. Cambalachero (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Navigation templates
I've noticed at least for the four American soaps there are now separate navboxes for characters of the series, such as this and this one. I'll be using General Hospital as my example. I'm wondering are these really necessary? The series template covers all the info the characters one does, and more. The series template is large, that's true, but it is certainly manageable. And due to the nature of Characters, not every character has their own page, but is included on the navbox for the sake of completeness. This causes several links that link to the same couple of articles, like this one. WP:NAV, says "Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template." These templates just repeat information that easily fits on the series template. Other characters from the same series aren't the only related article that should be linked to. There is absolutely no point to these navboxes.Caringtype1 (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Caption in infobox images
Recently I've noticed captions, in infoboxes of character articles, for the images of the portrayer are being removed, deemed unnecessary. I feel that captions are always needed to help distinguish that these are fictional characters and not real people. But I understand that per WP:Caption , a caption when only one actor has portrayed the role is not needed. But when any more than one actor has played the role (and that includes child actors and temporary replacements) captions are absolutely necessary. It is not right to tell our readers that multiple people that played the role, and then not specify who the picture is of. We cannot assume readers will know it's the current/most recent actor. Not only is that very presumptuous of readers, it puts undue weight on the present. I'd like to get more opinions on this, so we can get a clear consensus.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree; characters that have only been portrayed by one actor do not need a caption, but if a character has been portrayed by more than one, a caption is needed to distinguish. Even if there is only one image, as long as there is more than one actor listed in the "portrayer" parameter, a caption is needed. Creativity97 21:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think in terms of very temporary and/or short-term recasts where the replacement wasn't in the role long enough to not credit a "Due to the absence", it should not be included! But if it was a long-term recast, then it should. Such as Elizabeth Webber and Maxie Jones. Martha Madison's portrayal of Liz wasn't long enough to credit the caption, but Jen Lilley's portrayal of nearly one-year is required. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with that if it was one episode that the temp. actor was in. But if it was more than a few days, I think it's certainly notable enough. Madison portrayed the role for two weeks. How do readers unfamiliar with the series know if that picture is from those two weeks? It's much easier to include a caption and avoid confusion.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Two weeks in connection to decades worth of time of portrayal for a temporary re-cast is not notable in terms of the history of the character, nor show. Plus, Martha's image is no longer shown in the article. So it shouldn't matter. Rebecca is the most recognized actress. If they want details about a two-week, temporary actress, they can read the article. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, are we all mostly in agreement that if the role was portrayed by multiple actors (not on a temporary basis) a caption is required?Caringtype1 (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- Two weeks in connection to decades worth of time of portrayal for a temporary re-cast is not notable in terms of the history of the character, nor show. Plus, Martha's image is no longer shown in the article. So it shouldn't matter. Rebecca is the most recognized actress. If they want details about a two-week, temporary actress, they can read the article. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think the infobox captions are only needed in one circumstance. Other than that, they are not needed and redundant. The infobox contains the basic information but it kind of has a good order to it. So an info box will have
- I agree with that if it was one episode that the temp. actor was in. But if it was more than a few days, I think it's certainly notable enough. Madison portrayed the role for two weeks. How do readers unfamiliar with the series know if that picture is from those two weeks? It's much easier to include a caption and avoid confusion.Caringtype1 (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think in terms of very temporary and/or short-term recasts where the replacement wasn't in the role long enough to not credit a "Due to the absence", it should not be included! But if it was a long-term recast, then it should. Such as Elizabeth Webber and Maxie Jones. Martha Madison's portrayal of Liz wasn't long enough to credit the caption, but Jen Lilley's portrayal of nearly one-year is required. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Character name
- Picture
- (insert soap) Character
- Portrayed by"
- That information explains what the caption does. So "Jennifer Metcalfe as Mercedes McQueen" is redundant because you would read and think... "Mercedes McQueen, *sees picture** Hollyoaks Character, played by Jennifer Metcalfe." And I would then know that that is Jennifer Metcalfe as Mercedes in the photograph. So the infobox does a great job of being the caption, it explains.
- But the time I would use it when many recasts have happened - then you need to really specify which actor is playing the role being displayed in the infobox.Rain the 1 22:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
If people read the lead and don't understand from that lead that the image is of a fictional character, then it's the lead that is the problem. It's unlikely that a person goes to an article and looks at the picture without reading at least the first sentence of the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Adding Crossover parameter to info-boxes
I believe that we should add a ″crossover″ parameter to info-boxes since we have an excellent amount of characters have crossover another soap for example Robin Scorpio has crossed over three soaps as a guest stints. Furthermore, It clears up any confusion since that people add guest stint listed into the infoboxes that should not be. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 04:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree. Arre 04:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I also agree. Creativity97 04:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- If you are doing this for soaps, then you should do the same for primetime, comic book and film characters that crossover. Also where's the confusion, it's public knowledge that Robin crossed over to AMC Jester66 (talk) 07:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree we should add that parameter for other series. The confusion is not about that she was on AMC and it was that wheater AMC should be listed in the infobox. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- We are discussing soap character infoboxes. I think a "Crossover appearances" parameter would be good. Saying she's an All My Children character when she was only a guest for a couple of episodes is untrue. Arre 11:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I also agree adding that parameter is a good idea. It ends pointless debates such as wether or not Robin Scorpio is an All My Children character or not. We would use the 'series' parameter for the series the character originated from, and put any additional series in 'crossover'.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- ^^Agreed. This would also help with B&B and Y&R characters like Ashley Abbott and Amber Moore. Hope a parameter can be added to both box1 and box2.Arre 04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not just them but so many other characters who've crossed over between soaps, and there are A LOT of them. Jester66 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Love this idea! I think it'll help, especially in terms of certain characters who crossed over, and have since left. Or even take out the "spin-off" section and change it to "series" and list all series said characters have been on, etc. Maybe? livelikemusic my talk page! 22:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think we should keep spin-offs in a separate category. Jester66 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- That would just clutter the infobox, which can already tend to be too clutter as it is. Merging "spin-offs" into just "other appearances", etc. would just be easier and less of a distraction. livelikemusic my talk page! 14:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Jester66 on this. "spinoff" appearances and "crossover" appearances are two separate things. They should be kept separate and not all lumped together.Caringtype1 (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that's what the "Casting" and introduction sections are far. Infoboxes are supposed to be for information. Having two separate categories just does not make sense at all. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Really this discussion is just about adding the "crossover" parameter. You said above that you support the idea, so do you or not?Caringtype1 (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that's what the "Casting" and introduction sections are far. Infoboxes are supposed to be for information. Having two separate categories just does not make sense at all. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Jester66 on this. "spinoff" appearances and "crossover" appearances are two separate things. They should be kept separate and not all lumped together.Caringtype1 (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- That would just clutter the infobox, which can already tend to be too clutter as it is. Merging "spin-offs" into just "other appearances", etc. would just be easier and less of a distraction. livelikemusic my talk page! 14:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I think we should keep spin-offs in a separate category. Jester66 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Love this idea! I think it'll help, especially in terms of certain characters who crossed over, and have since left. Or even take out the "spin-off" section and change it to "series" and list all series said characters have been on, etc. Maybe? livelikemusic my talk page! 22:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not just them but so many other characters who've crossed over between soaps, and there are A LOT of them. Jester66 (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- ^^Agreed. This would also help with B&B and Y&R characters like Ashley Abbott and Amber Moore. Hope a parameter can be added to both box1 and box2.Arre 04:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
- I also agree adding that parameter is a good idea. It ends pointless debates such as wether or not Robin Scorpio is an All My Children character or not. We would use the 'series' parameter for the series the character originated from, and put any additional series in 'crossover'.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- We are discussing soap character infoboxes. I think a "Crossover appearances" parameter would be good. Saying she's an All My Children character when she was only a guest for a couple of episodes is untrue. Arre 11:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree we should add that parameter for other series. The confusion is not about that she was on AMC and it was that wheater AMC should be listed in the infobox. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone that give their opinions. It was decided to add the new parameter. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 12:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Template:Infobox soap character 2 cleanup
Please read Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Template:Infobox_soap_character_2_cleanup and Template talk:Infobox soap character 2. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Discussion is active at Template_talk:Infobox_soap_character_2#Infobox_needs_to_be_replaced_in_many_many_cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a relatively new editor at the Kendall Hart article who needs Wikipedia editing guidance. Anyone from here willing to help out on this matter? Flyer22 (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
WP Soap Operas in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Soap Operas for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 12:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I know that Adam was introduced in All My Children as Erica's love interest in 1983, although I wasn't born yet. Then Stuart was introduced as nuisance to Erica and sheltered by Adam. Since we can't depend on in-universe notability (especially retold synopses in mags like Soap Opera Digest), we might go for out-of-universe notability. Adam had many children and troubled romances, while Stuart is too innocent. I bet merging both articles is possible, although Stuart had some prominent stories, like his AIDS wife. Explaining their separate stories in one article won't make the page that long, does it? Here's the keychain photo of both. --George Ho (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
What are the differences between a sitcom and a soap opera?
I am not sure I understand the difference between a sitcom and a soap opera? Would someone please educate me. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- A sitcom is a comedy like Seinfeld or Friends. A soap opera is a drama, like The EastEnders or Days of our Lives.— TAnthonyTalk 19:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- More precisely, a sitcom has a basic "status quo"; all episodes begin from it and return to it at the end. So, you can watch any given episode, and understand it as a stand-alone story. A soap opera, on the other hand, has a story that is always going on from episode to episode, so you need to have seen them all (or at least most of them) to understand what's going on at the current one. In fact, the division in episodes is just for the watcher's convenience, the sitcom is one big never-ending story (or a single story that lasts for all the duration of the series). Cambalachero (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Amakuru trading out the General Hospital link for the General Hospital (U.S. TV series) link across Wikipedia
I'm not sure what to make of this matter. "General Hospital" is the article, while "General Hospital (U.S. TV series)" is a redirect to that article. If Amakuru is planning to move the General Hospital article to "General Hospital (U.S. TV series), while leaving General Hospital as a disambiguation page shared by other articles with the General Hospital name, then Amakuru should start a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion about this. Amakuru and others should also keep WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in mind. Flyer22 (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: I have replied to User:Flyer22 on this matter at User talk:Amakuru. There is already a requested move in progress, although my actions are not intended to be prejudicial to that at all. There is no effect for readers. — Amakuru (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Like I stated on your talk page, "I feel that you should have waited until the requested move discussion was over before making such a link change on a massive scale. And, yes, I am quite aware of what WP:Redirects do; that is not the point." To others, the move discussion is at Talk:General Hospital#Requested move. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have continued this conversation at my talk page: User talk:Amakuru#General Hospital. As I said there, I accept that I made a mistake here, and apologise for any inconvenience caused. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Update: I have now completed the reversion of the pages on which I'd changed the link, so all the affected pages are as they were, with the links directly to General Hospital rather than piped. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have continued this conversation at my talk page: User talk:Amakuru#General Hospital. As I said there, I accept that I made a mistake here, and apologise for any inconvenience caused. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- Like I stated on your talk page, "I feel that you should have waited until the requested move discussion was over before making such a link change on a massive scale. And, yes, I am quite aware of what WP:Redirects do; that is not the point." To others, the move discussion is at Talk:General Hospital#Requested move. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The relationship is already covered in Scott Robinson (Neighbours) and Charlene Mitchell. I wonder if the relationship page is necessary. --George Ho (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- As you know, it is necessary if they are notable as a couple and the couple article is not too redundant with regard to the individual character articles. Flyer22 (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- In this case, is the page redundant to either? If not, are certain portions appropriate for both pages? --George Ho (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- These two are probably the most famous couple in the history of Soap opera.Rain the 1 21:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fame isn't a sufficient reason for notability. But must we solely use it for the existence of the article? George Ho (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is in this case. Not really worth discussing. Like asking if The Queen should have an article tbh.Rain the 1 00:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fame isn't a sufficient reason for notability. But must we solely use it for the existence of the article? George Ho (talk) 07:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- These two are probably the most famous couple in the history of Soap opera.Rain the 1 21:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- In this case, is the page redundant to either? If not, are certain portions appropriate for both pages? --George Ho (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is a perfect example of why "non-soap" Wikipedians sometimes look at us like trivia-obsessed fangirls. The couple article Scott Robinson and Charlene Mitchell is short and has one citation. Both characters were on the show for 2-4 years. Yes they are individually quite notable (Scott Robinson (Neighbours) and Charlene Robinson) but if all of the relationship coverage is already in both articles, which are each more extensive and well-cited, why a third?? The only people going there are coming from one of the individual articles, I doubt a lot of people are typing out both names in a search. Honestly from the perspective of someone who hasn't watched the show, I'd almost suggest merging the individual articles into the couple article since their tenures on the show coincide so well and their couple status seems so important. I have a problem with couple articles in general because of the redundancy, but with long running characters who have been in more than one "super couple" relationship or have extensive individual notability, I get it. This does not seem to be one of those cases that requires three articles, no matter how many people watched their wedding.— TAnthonyTalk 02:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can I propose merger of two articles right now? George Ho (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- This is a perfect example of why "non-soap" Wikipedians sometimes look at us like trivia-obsessed fangirls. The couple article Scott Robinson and Charlene Mitchell is short and has one citation. Both characters were on the show for 2-4 years. Yes they are individually quite notable (Scott Robinson (Neighbours) and Charlene Robinson) but if all of the relationship coverage is already in both articles, which are each more extensive and well-cited, why a third?? The only people going there are coming from one of the individual articles, I doubt a lot of people are typing out both names in a search. Honestly from the perspective of someone who hasn't watched the show, I'd almost suggest merging the individual articles into the couple article since their tenures on the show coincide so well and their couple status seems so important. I have a problem with couple articles in general because of the redundancy, but with long running characters who have been in more than one "super couple" relationship or have extensive individual notability, I get it. This does not seem to be one of those cases that requires three articles, no matter how many people watched their wedding.— TAnthonyTalk 02:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Move request is made seven days ago, so I need your comments there. --George Ho (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Home/residence in Template:Infobox soap character
Dear all, please see discussion at Template talk:Infobox soap character#Home/residence and comment there if you so wish. Thanks. –anemoneprojectors– 16:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Requested move ongoing; comment to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Requested move ongoing; comment while it lasts. --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Telenovela task force
I would like to propose on making a task force for telenovelas on this WikiProject. While I know this project already focuses on telenovelas, I'd like to create a task force that not only deals with telenovelas, but also actors, awards, and songs specifically created for telenovelas. Thoughts? Erick (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds like a great idea, since the novela-related articles seem to get less editor attention than other types of soaps. Beyond a small core group of active participants though, this WikiProject has historically been a bit "understaffed," so don't be disappointed if it's a challenge to identify and engage interested participants. You may want to leave invitations on the talk pages of active articles, and editors you've seen working on them, and once you've led them here you can start organizing a formal task force. I was one of a few people a few years ago trying to bring this Project back from the dead, we amassed a lot of new participants but it was difficult to focus our energies. Actually it was me who went out and "claimed" all the telenovela and non-US/UK soap articles I could find as part of this Project to expand the scope and drum up participation. Let me know if I can help! — TAnthonyTalk 20:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah I definitely know that feeling. I started the Latin music project back in 2010 and it took a few years before it started taking off through hard and dedicated work. I'm the kind of guy that likes to experiment and see what works and what doesn't, so I'm willing to take the risk. I let some members who work on telenovelas are part of this project and some of the Latin music project since Spanish telenovela themes and Latin music tend to go hand in hand. If it's alright, could I start on a sandbox on my sandbox for the layout of the taskforce? Erick (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps it may be a better idea if we first try to identify a number of users who actually work in articles on telenovelas rather than soap operas, and create the task force when there's a reasonable base for it (say, for example, 5 users?). You can count me in that, I have created several such articles, and even have a pair in GAN awaiting review right now. Cambalachero (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Right, definitely. I'll go ahead and do that. Since I'll be in, that's two so far. Erick (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps it may be a better idea if we first try to identify a number of users who actually work in articles on telenovelas rather than soap operas, and create the task force when there's a reasonable base for it (say, for example, 5 users?). You can count me in that, I have created several such articles, and even have a pair in GAN awaiting review right now. Cambalachero (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah I definitely know that feeling. I started the Latin music project back in 2010 and it took a few years before it started taking off through hard and dedicated work. I'm the kind of guy that likes to experiment and see what works and what doesn't, so I'm willing to take the risk. I let some members who work on telenovelas are part of this project and some of the Latin music project since Spanish telenovela themes and Latin music tend to go hand in hand. If it's alright, could I start on a sandbox on my sandbox for the layout of the taskforce? Erick (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Cast members who have had multiple roles
Some cast lists have begun listing actors who've held multiple roles in a separate section from the main/current cast, while putting who they currently portray in the current cast section. Do you agree it should be listed in its own section, or should it just be listed in the current cast section where the actor may or may not portray a role currently? livelikemusic my talk page! 19:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Like was discussed on the days cast page, there is no point having an entry in two places. The cast member page is for cast members, not characters. We have the duration column that clearly shows a character is not being portrayed anymore. The Current cast member part is for current cast members, not current characters. Rm994 (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. IMO, if it's a list of characters, then all actors that played one character should be listed; if it's a list of cast, then all characters played by one actor should be listed. –anemoneprojectors– 12:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I agree, too. But people are arguing it's "cluttering" to the main infoboxes. I, however, disagree. It's a list of cast members, not characters. And with "years" column, it should be more than known who they played and for how long. Dividing it seems very fancruft to me. livelikemusic my talk page! 14:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Are we talking about in infoboxes, or in "list of" articles? Infoboxes should contain a link to the list of cast, rather than list the entire cast. I personally think a cast list should look more like this draft I've been working on: User:AnemoneProjectors/List of EastEnders cast members –anemoneprojectors– 17:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- List of cast members is what we're talking about. See List of General Hospital cast members for example. And that page looks nice, however, I do feel like American soap editors will totally hate it. They seem to be anti-change. But I like the idea. livelikemusic my talk page! 17:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- There was a large discussion about this topic at the General Hospital cast members talk page a while back. Some were arguing that actors who played a role in the past, but now play a different role, should be listed twice, in both past and current. And others, such as myself, argued that they are current cast members, they only need to be listed with the current cast. The solution was to create a new section, I never thought that a particularly good solution to the problem, but that's what was decided then. But I completely agree the section isn't needed and think sections like that should be merged back into the current cast (or past if they are't current).Caringtype1 (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
- That discussion was about characters, which it shouldn't have been. The solution was a temporary fix, but shouldn't be permanent. It's cluttering and cast lists aren't about characters; it's about cast members. And if a cast member portrayed more than role, it should be noted as such in either the current or past cast member section. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Any one else have anymore opinions on what should be done about this? livelikemusic my talk page! 17:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)